Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小，
##   (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 2501	control, N = 1251	treatment, N = 1251	p-value2
age	250	51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75)	50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75)	51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75)	0.559
gender	250				0.327
f		204 (82%)	99 (79%)	105 (84%)
m		46 (18%)	26 (21%)	20 (16%)
occupation	250				0.711
day_training		6 (2.4%)	2 (1.6%)	4 (3.2%)
full_time		29 (12%)	14 (11%)	15 (12%)
homemaker		32 (13%)	15 (12%)	17 (14%)
other		4 (1.6%)	1 (0.8%)	3 (2.4%)
part_time		43 (17%)	23 (18%)	20 (16%)
retired		61 (24%)	28 (22%)	33 (26%)
self_employ		8 (3.2%)	4 (3.2%)	4 (3.2%)
shelter		4 (1.6%)	4 (3.2%)	0 (0%)
student		4 (1.6%)	2 (1.6%)	2 (1.6%)
t_and_e		4 (1.6%)	3 (2.4%)	1 (0.8%)
unemploy		55 (22%)	29 (23%)	26 (21%)
marital	250				0.776
cohabitation		2 (0.8%)	0 (0%)	2 (1.6%)
divore		27 (11%)	15 (12%)	12 (9.6%)
in_relationship		6 (2.4%)	4 (3.2%)	2 (1.6%)
married		76 (30%)	35 (28%)	41 (33%)
none		117 (47%)	59 (47%)	58 (46%)
seperation		3 (1.2%)	2 (1.6%)	1 (0.8%)
widow		19 (7.6%)	10 (8.0%)	9 (7.2%)
edu	250				0.690
bachelor		54 (22%)	24 (19%)	30 (24%)
diploma		42 (17%)	25 (20%)	17 (14%)
hd_ad		6 (2.4%)	4 (3.2%)	2 (1.6%)
none		1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)
postgraduate		17 (6.8%)	9 (7.2%)	8 (6.4%)
primary		22 (8.8%)	9 (7.2%)	13 (10%)
secondary_1_3		29 (12%)	17 (14%)	12 (9.6%)
secondary_4_5		66 (26%)	31 (25%)	35 (28%)
secondary_6_7		13 (5.2%)	6 (4.8%)	7 (5.6%)
fam_income	250
10001_12000		10 (4.0%)	3 (2.4%)	7 (5.6%)
12001_14000		12 (4.8%)	4 (3.2%)	8 (6.4%)
14001_16000		12 (4.8%)	4 (3.2%)	8 (6.4%)
16001_18000		5 (2.0%)	3 (2.4%)	2 (1.6%)
18001_20000		12 (4.8%)	8 (6.4%)	4 (3.2%)
20001_above		43 (17%)	26 (21%)	17 (14%)
2001_4000		37 (15%)	18 (14%)	19 (15%)
4001_6000		31 (12%)	14 (11%)	17 (14%)
6001_8000		22 (8.8%)	13 (10%)	9 (7.2%)
8001_10000		20 (8.0%)	11 (8.8%)	9 (7.2%)
below_2000		46 (18%)	21 (17%)	25 (20%)
medication	250	224 (90%)	112 (90%)	112 (90%)	>0.999
onset_duration	250	15.13 ± 11.18 (0 - 63)	14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56)	15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63)	0.814
onset_age	250	36.04 ± 14.80 (-18 - 72)	35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72)	36.37 ± 15.65 (-18 - 68)	0.732
diagnosis_schizophrenia	250	50 (20%)	25 (20%)	25 (20%)	>0.999
diagnosis_delusional	250	13 (5.2%)	7 (5.6%)	6 (4.8%)	0.776
diagnosis_schizoaffective	250	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)	>0.999
diagnosis_schizoid	250	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)	>0.999
diagnosis_transient_psychotic	250	2 (0.8%)	1 (0.8%)	1 (0.8%)	>0.999
diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic	250
no		250 (100%)	125 (100%)	125 (100%)
diagnosis_depression	250	138 (55%)	69 (55%)	69 (55%)	>0.999
diagnosis_bipolar	250	24 (9.6%)	10 (8.0%)	14 (11%)	0.390
diagnosis_anxiety	250	87 (35%)	46 (37%)	41 (33%)	0.507
diagnosis_phobia	250	10 (4.0%)	3 (2.4%)	7 (5.6%)	0.197
diagnosis_personality_disorders	250	3 (1.2%)	0 (0%)	3 (2.4%)	0.247
diagnosis_substance_related_addictive	250	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)	>0.999
diagnosis_other	250	29 (12%)	17 (14%)	12 (9.6%)	0.323
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 2501	control, N = 1251	treatment, N = 1251	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	250	3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)	3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)	3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)	0.406
recovery_stage_b	250	17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24)	17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24)	17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24)	0.835
ras_confidence	250	29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45)	29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45)	30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45)	0.637
ras_willingness	250	11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15)	11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15)	11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15)	0.905
ras_goal	250	17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)	17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)	17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)	0.413
ras_reliance	250	13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20)	13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20)	13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20)	0.614
ras_domination	250	9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15)	9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)	9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15)	0.206
symptom	250	30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70)	31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70)	30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56)	0.301
slof_work	250	22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30)	22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30)	22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30)	0.989
slof_relationship	250	24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35)	24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35)	25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35)	0.252
satisfaction	250	20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35)	19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35)	21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35)	0.136
mhc_emotional	250	10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19)	10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)	11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19)	0.459
mhc_social	250	15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30)	15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30)	15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30)	>0.999
mhc_psychological	250	21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36)	21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36)	21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36)	0.715
resilisnce	250	16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)	16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)	16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30)	0.177
social_provision	250	13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)	13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)	13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)	0.032
els_value_living	250	16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25)	16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25)	17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25)	0.331
els_life_fulfill	250	12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20)	12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20)	13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20)	0.100
els	250	29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45)	29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45)	30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45)	0.154
social_connect	250	27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48)	27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48)	26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48)	0.293
shs_agency	250	14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)	13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)	14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24)	0.110
shs_pathway	250	15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24)	15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24)	16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24)	0.057
shs	250	30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48)	29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48)	31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48)	0.070
esteem	250	12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20)	12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20)	12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20)	0.732
mlq_search	250	14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21)	14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21)	15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21)	0.105
mlq_presence	250	13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21)	13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21)	13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21)	0.396
mlq	250	28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42)	27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42)	28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42)	0.183
empower	250	19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)	18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30)	19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)	0.351
ismi_resistance	250	14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)	14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20)	14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)	0.981
ismi_discrimation	250	11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20)	11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20)	11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20)	0.823
sss_affective	250	10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)	10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)	10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)	0.629
sss_behavior	250	10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)	10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)	10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)	0.867
sss_cognitive	250	8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)	8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)	9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)	0.402
sss	250	29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54)	29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)	29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)	0.682
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.20	0.109	2.99, 3.41
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.128	0.154	-0.430, 0.174	0.407
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.030	0.134	-0.232, 0.293	0.822
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.177	0.193	-0.201, 0.555	0.359
	Pseudo R square	0.004
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	17.9	0.269	17.4, 18.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.080	0.380	-0.825, 0.665	0.834
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.184	0.245	-0.664, 0.297	0.454
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.03	0.354	0.332, 1.72	0.004
	Pseudo R square	0.013
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	29.7	0.504	28.7, 30.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.336	0.712	-1.06, 1.73	0.637
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.761	0.398	-0.020, 1.54	0.058
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.04	0.577	-0.092, 2.17	0.073
	Pseudo R square	0.019
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	11.6	0.184	11.3, 12.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.032	0.260	-0.477, 0.541	0.902
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.017	0.174	-0.323, 0.358	0.920
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.324	0.251	-0.169, 0.816	0.199
	Pseudo R square	0.005
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.2	0.290	16.6, 17.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.344	0.410	-0.459, 1.15	0.402
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.436	0.255	-0.065, 0.936	0.089
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.442	0.369	-0.282, 1.17	0.233
	Pseudo R square	0.017
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.1	0.263	12.6, 13.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.184	0.372	-0.546, 0.914	0.621
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.391	0.208	-0.017, 0.799	0.062
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.289	0.301	-0.302, 0.879	0.339
	Pseudo R square	0.011
ras_domination	(Intercept)	9.95	0.214	9.53, 10.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.392	0.303	-0.986, 0.202	0.197
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.056	0.210	-0.355, 0.467	0.790
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.836	0.303	0.243, 1.43	0.006
	Pseudo R square	0.016
symptom	(Intercept)	31.5	0.882	29.8, 33.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.29	1.247	-3.73, 1.16	0.303
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.27	0.635	-2.51, -0.021	0.048
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.266	0.920	-2.07, 1.54	0.773
	Pseudo R square	0.010
slof_work	(Intercept)	22.1	0.409	21.3, 22.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.008	0.578	-1.14, 1.13	0.989
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.445	0.341	-0.223, 1.11	0.193
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.165	0.493	-0.801, 1.13	0.738
	Pseudo R square	0.003
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	24.5	0.515	23.5, 25.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.840	0.729	-0.589, 2.27	0.250
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.489	0.413	-0.321, 1.30	0.238
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.233	0.598	-0.940, 1.41	0.698
	Pseudo R square	0.009
satisfaction	(Intercept)	19.7	0.641	18.4, 20.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.37	0.907	-0.410, 3.15	0.133
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.18	0.490	0.218, 2.14	0.017
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.124	0.709	-1.27, 1.51	0.861
	Pseudo R square	0.017
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	10.6	0.336	9.99, 11.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.352	0.475	-0.579, 1.28	0.459
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.448	0.258	-0.058, 0.955	0.084
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.069	0.374	-0.802, 0.664	0.855
	Pseudo R square	0.005
mhc_social	(Intercept)	15.1	0.544	14.1, 16.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.000	0.770	-1.51, 1.51	1.00
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.736	0.423	-0.093, 1.56	0.083
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.400	0.612	-0.799, 1.60	0.514
	Pseudo R square	0.006
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.6	0.631	20.3, 22.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.320	0.892	-1.43, 2.07	0.720
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.19	0.470	0.269, 2.11	0.012
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.279	0.680	-1.61, 1.05	0.682
	Pseudo R square	0.006
resilisnce	(Intercept)	16.2	0.388	15.4, 16.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.760	0.549	-0.317, 1.84	0.167
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.714	0.343	0.042, 1.39	0.038
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.474	0.496	-0.497, 1.45	0.340
	Pseudo R square	0.024
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.2	0.250	12.7, 13.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.744	0.353	0.052, 1.44	0.036
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.045	0.204	-0.445, 0.355	0.825
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.408	0.295	-0.171, 0.986	0.168
	Pseudo R square	0.028
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.8	0.286	16.2, 17.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.392	0.404	-0.400, 1.18	0.333
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.350	0.229	-0.099, 0.798	0.128
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.312	0.331	-0.336, 0.961	0.347
	Pseudo R square	0.013
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	12.4	0.294	11.8, 13.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.696	0.416	-0.120, 1.51	0.095
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.339	0.218	-0.089, 0.767	0.122
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.174	0.316	-0.446, 0.793	0.583
	Pseudo R square	0.017
els	(Intercept)	29.2	0.540	28.1, 30.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.09	0.764	-0.409, 2.59	0.155
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.683	0.382	-0.065, 1.43	0.075
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.499	0.553	-0.585, 1.58	0.368
	Pseudo R square	0.017
social_connect	(Intercept)	27.9	0.819	26.3, 29.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.22	1.158	-3.49, 1.05	0.295
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.787	0.610	-1.98, 0.408	0.198
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.36	0.883	-3.08, 0.375	0.126
	Pseudo R square	0.017
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.8	0.445	13.0, 14.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.01	0.630	-0.226, 2.24	0.111
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.300	0.336	-0.358, 0.958	0.372
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.648	0.486	-0.304, 1.60	0.184
	Pseudo R square	0.021
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	15.3	0.361	14.6, 16.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.01	0.511	0.007, 2.01	0.049
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.576	0.295	-0.001, 1.15	0.052
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.268	0.426	-0.567, 1.10	0.530
	Pseudo R square	0.026
shs	(Intercept)	29.2	0.768	27.7, 30.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.02	1.086	-0.113, 4.14	0.064
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.874	0.572	-0.247, 1.99	0.128
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.924	0.828	-0.698, 2.55	0.266
	Pseudo R square	0.025
esteem	(Intercept)	12.8	0.143	12.5, 13.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.072	0.202	-0.467, 0.323	0.721
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.147	0.158	-0.457, 0.164	0.355
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.183	0.229	-0.265, 0.631	0.425
	Pseudo R square	0.001
mlq_search	(Intercept)	14.4	0.309	13.8, 15.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.720	0.437	-0.136, 1.58	0.100
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.682	0.306	0.082, 1.28	0.027
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.705	0.442	-1.57, 0.162	0.113
	Pseudo R square	0.008
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	13.2	0.378	12.4, 13.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.464	0.534	-0.583, 1.51	0.386
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.614	0.328	-0.029, 1.26	0.063
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.248	0.475	-0.682, 1.18	0.602
	Pseudo R square	0.012
mlq	(Intercept)	27.5	0.617	26.3, 28.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.18	0.873	-0.527, 2.90	0.176
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.30	0.549	0.218, 2.37	0.019
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.442	0.794	-2.00, 1.12	0.579
	Pseudo R square	0.011
empower	(Intercept)	18.8	0.404	18.1, 19.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.528	0.571	-0.591, 1.65	0.356
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.804	0.327	0.163, 1.45	0.015
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.138	0.473	-0.789, 1.07	0.770
	Pseudo R square	0.013
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	14.4	0.223	13.9, 14.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.008	0.316	-0.627, 0.611	0.980
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.205	0.233	-0.252, 0.662	0.380
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.493	0.336	-0.166, 1.15	0.144
	Pseudo R square	0.012
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	11.8	0.276	11.3, 12.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.088	0.390	-0.853, 0.677	0.822
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.415	0.271	-0.946, 0.115	0.127
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.444	0.391	-1.21, 0.322	0.257
	Pseudo R square	0.013
sss_affective	(Intercept)	10.4	0.324	9.76, 11.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.224	0.459	-0.675, 1.12	0.626
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.307	0.249	-0.794, 0.181	0.219
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.714	0.360	-1.42, -0.008	0.049
	Pseudo R square	0.010
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	10.2	0.333	9.52, 10.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.080	0.470	-1.00, 0.842	0.865
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.474	0.256	-0.975, 0.027	0.065
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.369	0.370	-1.09, 0.356	0.319
	Pseudo R square	0.009
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	8.71	0.335	8.06, 9.37
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.408	0.473	-0.519, 1.34	0.389
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.279	0.254	-0.778, 0.219	0.273
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.672	0.368	-1.39, 0.050	0.069
	Pseudo R square	0.009
sss	(Intercept)	29.3	0.935	27.5, 31.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.552	1.322	-2.04, 3.14	0.676
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.08	0.643	-2.34, 0.183	0.096
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.69	0.931	-3.51, 0.135	0.071
	Pseudo R square	0.010
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.01e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(442) = 29.38, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(442) = -0.83, p = 0.406; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.29], t(442) = 0.23, p = 0.822; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.56], t(442) = 0.92, p = 0.358; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(442) = 66.48, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.67], t(442) = -0.21, p = 0.833; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.30], t(442) = -0.75, p = 0.453; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.10])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [0.33, 1.72], t(442) = 2.90, p = 0.004; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [0.11, 0.58])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.68], t(442) = 58.94, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(442) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.54], t(442) = 1.91, p = 0.056; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-3.58e-03, 0.28])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.09, 2.17], t(442) = 1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.39])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.02e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.98], t(442) = 63.30, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.54], t(442) = 0.12, p = 0.902; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.36], t(442) = 0.10, p = 0.920; Std. beta = 8.56e-03, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.18])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.82], t(442) = 1.29, p = 0.198; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.40])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.62, 17.75], t(442) = 59.28, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(442) = 0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.94], t(442) = 1.71, p = 0.088; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.17], t(442) = 1.20, p = 0.231; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.36])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(442) = 49.94, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.91], t(442) = 0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.80], t(442) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-5.67e-03, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.88], t(442) = 0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.30])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(442) = 46.45, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.20], t(442) = -1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.08])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.47], t(442) = 0.27, p = 0.789; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.20])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [0.24, 1.43], t(442) = 2.76, p = 0.006; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [0.10, 0.60])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.77, 33.22], t(442) = 35.72, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.73, 1.16], t(442) = -1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-2.51, -0.02], t(442) = -1.99, p = 0.046; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, -2.17e-03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-2.07, 1.54], t(442) = -0.29, p = 0.772; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.16])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.87], t(442) = 53.96, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.13], t(442) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.11], t(442) = 1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.13], t(442) = 0.34, p = 0.737; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.25])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.20e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.49, 25.51], t(442) = 47.54, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.27], t(442) = 1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.30], t(442) = 1.18, p = 0.237; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.41], t(442) = 0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.24])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.41, 20.92], t(442) = 30.66, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.15], t(442) = 1.51, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [0.22, 2.14], t(442) = 2.40, p = 0.016; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.03, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.51], t(442) = 0.18, p = 0.861; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.21])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.31], t(442) = 31.70, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.28], t(442) = 0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.95], t(442) = 1.74, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.66], t(442) = -0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.18])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.16e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.19], t(442) = 27.79, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.90e-14, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.51], t(442) = -2.46e-14, p > .999; Std. beta = -8.63e-16, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.56], t(442) = 1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.60], t(442) = 0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.27])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.72e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.79], t(442) = 34.15, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.07], t(442) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [0.27, 2.11], t(442) = 2.53, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.04, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.61, 1.05], t(442) = -0.41, p = 0.681; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.15])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.41, 16.94], t(442) = 41.65, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.84], t(442) = 1.38, p = 0.166; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [0.04, 1.39], t(442) = 2.08, p = 0.037; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [9.60e-03, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.45], t(442) = 0.96, p = 0.339; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.33])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(442) = 52.73, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(442) = 2.11, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.51])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.35], t(442) = -0.22, p = 0.825; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.13])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.99], t(442) = 1.38, p = 0.167; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.35])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(442) = 58.68, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(442) = 0.97, p = 0.332; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.80], t(442) = 1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.96], t(442) = 0.94, p = 0.346; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.30])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.98], t(442) = 42.17, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(442) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.77], t(442) = 1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.79], t(442) = 0.55, p = 0.582; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.24])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.23], t(442) = 54.00, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.59], t(442) = 1.42, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.43], t(442) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.58], t(442) = 0.90, p = 0.367; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.26])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.27, 29.49], t(442) = 34.04, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.49, 1.05], t(442) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-1.98, 0.41], t(442) = -1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.04])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.36, 95% CI [-3.08, 0.37], t(442) = -1.54, p = 0.125; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.04])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.97, 14.71], t(442) = 31.08, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.24], t(442) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.96], t(442) = 0.89, p = 0.371; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.19])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.60], t(442) = 1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.32])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.62, 16.04], t(442) = 42.43, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [6.60e-03, 2.01], t(442) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [1.62e-03, 0.49])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-9.96e-04, 1.15], t(442) = 1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-2.45e-04, 0.28])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.10], t(442) = 0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.27])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.66, 30.67], t(442) = 37.98, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.11, 4.14], t(442) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.99], t(442) = 1.53, p = 0.127; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.55], t(442) = 1.12, p = 0.264; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.29])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.52, 13.08], t(442) = 89.81, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.32], t(442) = -0.36, p = 0.721; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.20])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.16], t(442) = -0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.10])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.63], t(442) = 0.80, p = 0.424; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.40])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.26e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.75, 14.97], t(442) = 46.50, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(442) = 1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [0.08, 1.28], t(442) = 2.23, p = 0.026; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.02, 0.37])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.16], t(442) = -1.59, p = 0.111; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.05])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(442) = 34.82, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(442) = 0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.26], t(442) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-6.80e-03, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.18], t(442) = 0.52, p = 0.602; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.28])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(442) = 44.56, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.90], t(442) = 1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [0.22, 2.37], t(442) = 2.36, p = 0.018; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.03, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-2.00, 1.12], t(442) = -0.56, p = 0.578; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.16])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.06, 19.64], t(442) = 46.67, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.65], t(442) = 0.92, p = 0.355; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [0.16, 1.45], t(442) = 2.46, p = 0.014; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [0.04, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.07], t(442) = 0.29, p = 0.770; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.24])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(442) = 64.33, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.61], t(442) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.21e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.24])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.66], t(442) = 0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.15], t(442) = 1.47, p = 0.143; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.46])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(442) = 42.73, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.68], t(442) = -0.23, p = 0.822; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.12], t(442) = -1.53, p = 0.125; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.04])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.21, 0.32], t(442) = -1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.10])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(442) = 32.08, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.12], t(442) = 0.49, p = 0.625; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.18], t(442) = -1.23, p = 0.217; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.05])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-1.42, -8.15e-03], t(442) = -1.98, p = 0.047; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.39, -2.25e-03])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.08e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(442) = 30.59, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(442) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.03], t(442) = -1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, 7.20e-03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.36], t(442) = -1.00, p = 0.318; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.10])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.68e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(442) = 26.04, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.34], t(442) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.22], t(442) = -1.10, p = 0.272; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.06])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.05], t(442) = -1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.01])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.72e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.46, 31.12], t(442) = 31.34, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.14], t(442) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.08, 95% CI [-2.34, 0.18], t(442) = -1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.02])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.69, 95% CI [-3.51, 0.14], t(442) = -1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.01])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	1,429.045	1,441.359	-711.523	1,423.045
recovery_stage_a	random	6	1,432.575	1,457.204	-710.288	1,420.575	2.470	3	0.481
recovery_stage_b	null	3	2,165.749	2,178.063	-1,079.874	2,159.749
recovery_stage_b	random	6	2,159.843	2,184.472	-1,073.922	2,147.843	11.905	3	0.008
ras_confidence	null	3	2,691.264	2,703.579	-1,342.632	2,685.264
ras_confidence	random	6	2,674.824	2,699.453	-1,331.412	2,662.824	22.440	3	0.000
ras_willingness	null	3	1,827.950	1,840.265	-910.975	1,821.950
ras_willingness	random	6	1,829.946	1,854.575	-908.973	1,817.946	4.004	3	0.261
ras_goal	null	3	2,224.838	2,237.152	-1,109.419	2,218.838
ras_goal	random	6	2,215.732	2,240.361	-1,101.866	2,203.732	15.106	3	0.002
ras_reliance	null	3	2,100.919	2,113.233	-1,047.459	2,094.919
ras_reliance	random	6	2,093.278	2,117.906	-1,040.639	2,081.278	13.641	3	0.003
ras_domination	null	3	1,988.462	2,000.777	-991.231	1,982.462
ras_domination	random	6	1,978.071	2,002.700	-983.036	1,966.071	16.391	3	0.001
symptom	null	3	3,148.560	3,160.875	-1,571.280	3,142.560
symptom	random	6	3,144.119	3,168.748	-1,566.059	3,132.119	10.441	3	0.015
slof_work	null	3	2,504.691	2,517.006	-1,249.346	2,498.691
slof_work	random	6	2,506.040	2,530.669	-1,247.020	2,494.040	4.651	3	0.199
slof_relationship	null	3	2,700.282	2,712.597	-1,347.141	2,694.282
slof_relationship	random	6	2,700.332	2,724.961	-1,344.166	2,688.332	5.950	3	0.114
satisfaction	null	3	2,887.828	2,900.142	-1,440.914	2,881.828
satisfaction	random	6	2,879.351	2,903.979	-1,433.675	2,867.351	14.477	3	0.002
mhc_emotional	null	3	2,301.654	2,313.968	-1,147.827	2,295.654
mhc_emotional	random	6	2,302.235	2,326.864	-1,145.117	2,290.235	5.419	3	0.144
mhc_social	null	3	2,741.503	2,753.818	-1,367.752	2,735.503
mhc_social	random	6	2,738.040	2,762.669	-1,363.020	2,726.040	9.464	3	0.024
mhc_psychological	null	3	2,859.424	2,871.738	-1,426.712	2,853.424
mhc_psychological	random	6	2,855.733	2,880.362	-1,421.866	2,843.733	9.691	3	0.021
resilisnce	null	3	2,490.822	2,503.136	-1,242.411	2,484.822
resilisnce	random	6	2,478.560	2,503.189	-1,233.280	2,466.560	18.262	3	0.000
social_provision	null	3	2,061.569	2,073.884	-1,027.785	2,055.569
social_provision	random	6	2,057.239	2,081.868	-1,022.620	2,045.239	10.330	3	0.016
els_value_living	null	3	2,176.267	2,188.581	-1,085.133	2,170.267
els_value_living	random	6	2,170.700	2,195.329	-1,079.350	2,158.700	11.567	3	0.009
els_life_fulfill	null	3	2,176.024	2,188.339	-1,085.012	2,170.024
els_life_fulfill	random	6	2,171.051	2,195.680	-1,079.525	2,159.051	10.974	3	0.012
els	null	3	2,707.054	2,719.369	-1,350.527	2,701.054
els	random	6	2,698.398	2,723.027	-1,343.199	2,686.398	14.656	3	0.002
social_connect	null	3	3,098.624	3,110.938	-1,546.312	3,092.624
social_connect	random	6	3,089.489	3,114.118	-1,538.745	3,077.489	15.134	3	0.002
shs_agency	null	3	2,554.195	2,566.509	-1,274.097	2,548.195
shs_agency	random	6	2,547.875	2,572.504	-1,267.938	2,535.875	12.319	3	0.006
shs_pathway	null	3	2,397.852	2,410.167	-1,195.926	2,391.852
shs_pathway	random	6	2,387.554	2,412.183	-1,187.777	2,375.554	16.298	3	0.001
shs	null	3	3,042.234	3,054.549	-1,518.117	3,036.234
shs	random	6	3,031.984	3,056.613	-1,509.992	3,019.984	16.250	3	0.001
esteem	null	3	1,644.298	1,656.612	-819.149	1,638.298
esteem	random	6	1,649.384	1,674.013	-818.692	1,637.384	0.914	3	0.822
mlq_search	null	3	2,309.815	2,322.130	-1,151.908	2,303.815
mlq_search	random	6	2,309.744	2,334.372	-1,148.872	2,297.744	6.072	3	0.108
mlq_presence	null	3	2,453.344	2,465.658	-1,223.672	2,447.344
mlq_presence	random	6	2,448.518	2,473.147	-1,218.259	2,436.518	10.826	3	0.013
mlq	null	3	2,899.739	2,912.053	-1,446.869	2,893.739
mlq	random	6	2,896.633	2,921.262	-1,442.316	2,884.633	9.106	3	0.028
empower	null	3	2,493.439	2,505.753	-1,243.720	2,487.439
empower	random	6	2,485.043	2,509.672	-1,236.522	2,473.043	14.396	3	0.002
ismi_resistance	null	3	2,037.367	2,049.682	-1,015.684	2,031.367
ismi_resistance	random	6	2,034.022	2,058.651	-1,011.011	2,022.022	9.345	3	0.025
ismi_discrimation	null	3	2,211.746	2,224.060	-1,102.873	2,205.746
ismi_discrimation	random	6	2,205.799	2,230.428	-1,096.900	2,193.799	11.946	3	0.008
sss_affective	null	3	2,280.093	2,292.407	-1,137.046	2,274.093
sss_affective	random	6	2,269.547	2,294.176	-1,128.773	2,257.547	16.546	3	0.001
sss_behavior	null	3	2,300.708	2,313.022	-1,147.354	2,294.708
sss_behavior	random	6	2,293.314	2,317.943	-1,140.657	2,281.314	13.394	3	0.004
sss_cognitive	null	3	2,302.479	2,314.793	-1,148.239	2,296.479
sss_cognitive	random	6	2,294.600	2,319.229	-1,141.300	2,282.600	13.879	3	0.003
sss	null	3	3,192.814	3,205.128	-1,593.407	3,186.814
sss	random	6	3,179.686	3,204.315	-1,583.843	3,167.686	19.128	3	0.000

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	125	3.20 ± 1.22		125	3.07 ± 1.22		0.407	0.129
recovery_stage_a	2nd	104	3.23 ± 1.21	-0.030	94	3.28 ± 1.20	-0.209	0.774	-0.049
recovery_stage_b	1st	125	17.88 ± 3.01		125	17.80 ± 3.01		0.834	0.045
recovery_stage_b	2nd	104	17.70 ± 2.90	0.102	94	18.64 ± 2.85	-0.470	0.021	-0.527
ras_confidence	1st	125	29.69 ± 5.63		125	30.02 ± 5.63		0.637	-0.116
ras_confidence	2nd	104	30.45 ± 5.37	-0.262	94	31.82 ± 5.24	-0.619	0.070	-0.473
ras_willingness	1st	125	11.62 ± 2.05		125	11.66 ± 2.05		0.902	-0.025
ras_willingness	2nd	104	11.64 ± 1.99	-0.014	94	12.00 ± 1.96	-0.268	0.206	-0.279
ras_goal	1st	125	17.18 ± 3.24		125	17.53 ± 3.24		0.402	-0.184
ras_goal	2nd	104	17.62 ± 3.12	-0.233	94	18.41 ± 3.06	-0.470	0.074	-0.421
ras_reliance	1st	125	13.14 ± 2.94		125	13.33 ± 2.94		0.621	-0.121
ras_reliance	2nd	104	13.54 ± 2.81	-0.258	94	14.01 ± 2.74	-0.448	0.232	-0.311
ras_domination	1st	125	9.95 ± 2.40		125	9.56 ± 2.40		0.197	0.255
ras_domination	2nd	104	10.01 ± 2.33	-0.036	94	10.45 ± 2.29	-0.580	0.177	-0.289
symptom	1st	125	31.50 ± 9.86		125	30.21 ± 9.86		0.303	0.279
symptom	2nd	104	30.23 ± 9.34	0.274	94	28.68 ± 9.09	0.331	0.237	0.336
slof_work	1st	125	22.06 ± 4.57		125	22.06 ± 4.57		0.989	0.003
slof_work	2nd	104	22.51 ± 4.38	-0.179	94	22.67 ± 4.28	-0.245	0.798	-0.063
slof_relationship	1st	125	24.50 ± 5.76		125	25.34 ± 5.76		0.250	-0.278
slof_relationship	2nd	104	24.99 ± 5.50	-0.162	94	26.07 ± 5.37	-0.239	0.166	-0.356
satisfaction	1st	125	19.66 ± 7.17		125	21.03 ± 7.17		0.133	-0.383
satisfaction	2nd	104	20.84 ± 6.82	-0.330	94	22.33 ± 6.65	-0.365	0.120	-0.418
mhc_emotional	1st	125	10.65 ± 3.76		125	11.00 ± 3.76		0.459	-0.187
mhc_emotional	2nd	104	11.10 ± 3.57	-0.238	94	11.38 ± 3.49	-0.202	0.573	-0.151
mhc_social	1st	125	15.13 ± 6.09		125	15.13 ± 6.09		1.000	0.000
mhc_social	2nd	104	15.86 ± 5.80	-0.239	94	16.26 ± 5.65	-0.369	0.624	-0.130
mhc_psychological	1st	125	21.55 ± 7.06		125	21.87 ± 7.06		0.720	-0.094
mhc_psychological	2nd	104	22.74 ± 6.70	-0.348	94	22.78 ± 6.53	-0.266	0.965	-0.012
resilisnce	1st	125	16.18 ± 4.34		125	16.94 ± 4.34		0.167	-0.303
resilisnce	2nd	104	16.89 ± 4.18	-0.285	94	18.12 ± 4.10	-0.474	0.037	-0.492
social_provision	1st	125	13.17 ± 2.79		125	13.91 ± 2.79		0.036	-0.500
social_provision	2nd	104	13.12 ± 2.67	0.030	94	14.27 ± 2.61	-0.244	0.002	-0.774
els_value_living	1st	125	16.76 ± 3.19		125	17.15 ± 3.19		0.333	-0.235
els_value_living	2nd	104	17.11 ± 3.05	-0.210	94	17.81 ± 2.98	-0.397	0.101	-0.422
els_life_fulfill	1st	125	12.41 ± 3.29		125	13.10 ± 3.29		0.095	-0.438
els_life_fulfill	2nd	104	12.75 ± 3.12	-0.213	94	13.62 ± 3.04	-0.322	0.048	-0.547
els	1st	125	29.17 ± 6.04		125	30.26 ± 6.04		0.155	-0.391
els	2nd	104	29.85 ± 5.72	-0.246	94	31.44 ± 5.56	-0.425	0.048	-0.571
social_connect	1st	125	27.88 ± 9.16		125	26.66 ± 9.16		0.295	0.274
social_connect	2nd	104	27.09 ± 8.70	0.177	94	24.52 ± 8.47	0.482	0.036	0.579
shs_agency	1st	125	13.84 ± 4.98		125	14.85 ± 4.98		0.111	-0.412
shs_agency	2nd	104	14.14 ± 4.73	-0.123	94	15.80 ± 4.61	-0.388	0.013	-0.677
shs_pathway	1st	125	15.33 ± 4.04		125	16.34 ± 4.04		0.049	-0.469
shs_pathway	2nd	104	15.90 ± 3.86	-0.268	94	17.18 ± 3.77	-0.393	0.019	-0.594
shs	1st	125	29.17 ± 8.59		125	31.18 ± 8.59		0.064	-0.484
shs	2nd	104	30.04 ± 8.16	-0.210	94	32.98 ± 7.94	-0.432	0.011	-0.706
esteem	1st	125	12.80 ± 1.59		125	12.73 ± 1.59		0.721	0.062
esteem	2nd	104	12.65 ± 1.57	0.126	94	12.76 ± 1.55	-0.031	0.618	-0.095
mlq_search	1st	125	14.36 ± 3.45		125	15.08 ± 3.45		0.100	-0.320
mlq_search	2nd	104	15.04 ± 3.36	-0.303	94	15.06 ± 3.31	0.010	0.974	-0.007
mlq_presence	1st	125	13.15 ± 4.22		125	13.62 ± 4.22		0.386	-0.193
mlq_presence	2nd	104	13.77 ± 4.06	-0.256	94	14.48 ± 3.98	-0.359	0.214	-0.297
mlq	1st	125	27.51 ± 6.90		125	28.70 ± 6.90		0.176	-0.295
mlq	2nd	104	28.81 ± 6.65	-0.322	94	29.55 ± 6.52	-0.212	0.429	-0.185
empower	1st	125	18.85 ± 4.52		125	19.38 ± 4.52		0.356	-0.221
empower	2nd	104	19.65 ± 4.31	-0.337	94	20.32 ± 4.22	-0.395	0.273	-0.279
ismi_resistance	1st	125	14.36 ± 2.50		125	14.35 ± 2.50		0.980	0.005
ismi_resistance	2nd	104	14.57 ± 2.44	-0.120	94	15.05 ± 2.41	-0.407	0.160	-0.283
ismi_discrimation	1st	125	11.79 ± 3.09		125	11.70 ± 3.09		0.822	0.044
ismi_discrimation	2nd	104	11.38 ± 3.00	0.209	94	10.84 ± 2.95	0.433	0.209	0.268
sss_affective	1st	125	10.40 ± 3.62		125	10.62 ± 3.62		0.626	-0.124
sss_affective	2nd	104	10.09 ± 3.45	0.169	94	9.60 ± 3.36	0.563	0.313	0.270
sss_behavior	1st	125	10.18 ± 3.72		125	10.10 ± 3.72		0.865	0.043
sss_behavior	2nd	104	9.70 ± 3.54	0.254	94	9.25 ± 3.45	0.453	0.367	0.241
sss_cognitive	1st	125	8.71 ± 3.74		125	9.12 ± 3.74		0.389	-0.220
sss_cognitive	2nd	104	8.43 ± 3.56	0.151	94	8.17 ± 3.47	0.513	0.598	0.142
sss	1st	125	29.29 ± 10.45		125	29.84 ± 10.45		0.676	-0.118
sss	2nd	104	28.21 ± 9.87	0.230	94	27.07 ± 9.59	0.592	0.412	0.243

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(404.72) = -0.83, p = 0.407, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.17)

2st

t(430.56) = 0.29, p = 0.774, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.39)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(329.18) = -0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)

2st

t(380.02) = 2.31, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (0.14 to 1.75)

ras_confidence

1st

t(306.80) = 0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.74)

2st

t(354.30) = 1.82, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.11 to 2.86)

ras_willingness

1st

t(336.49) = 0.12, p = 0.902, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.54)

2st

t(387.07) = 1.27, p = 0.206, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.91)

ras_goal

1st

t(322.97) = 0.84, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.15)

2st

t(373.54) = 1.79, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.65)

ras_reliance

1st

t(306.76) = 0.49, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)

2st

t(354.24) = 1.20, p = 0.232, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.25)

ras_domination

1st

t(343.32) = -1.29, p = 0.197, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.20)

2st

t(393.13) = 1.35, p = 0.177, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.09)

symptom

1st

t(295.74) = -1.03, p = 0.303, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.74 to 1.17)

2st

t(338.93) = -1.19, p = 0.237, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-4.13 to 1.02)

slof_work

1st

t(314.28) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.13)

2st

t(363.65) = 0.26, p = 0.798, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.05 to 1.37)

slof_relationship

1st

t(308.69) = 1.15, p = 0.250, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)

2st

t(356.74) = 1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.59)

satisfaction

1st

t(302.34) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.15)

2st

t(348.33) = 1.56, p = 0.120, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.39 to 3.38)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(303.23) = 0.74, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.29)

2st

t(349.55) = 0.56, p = 0.573, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.27)

mhc_social

1st

t(304.42) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)

2st

t(351.16) = 0.49, p = 0.624, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.20 to 2.00)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(299.28) = 0.36, p = 0.720, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.44 to 2.08)

2st

t(344.06) = 0.04, p = 0.965, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.81 to 1.89)

resilisnce

1st

t(323.34) = 1.38, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.84)

2st

t(373.94) = 2.10, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.08 to 2.39)

social_provision

1st

t(311.27) = 2.11, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)

2st

t(359.98) = 3.07, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (0.41 to 1.89)

els_value_living

1st

t(308.41) = 0.97, p = 0.333, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.19)

2st

t(356.37) = 1.64, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.55)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(298.92) = 1.67, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.51)

2st

t(343.56) = 1.98, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.73)

els

1st

t(293.81) = 1.42, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.59)

2st

t(336.05) = 1.98, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.01 to 3.16)

social_connect

1st

t(299.31) = -1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.50 to 1.06)

2st

t(344.11) = -2.11, p = 0.036, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-4.97 to -0.17)

shs_agency

1st

t(300.78) = 1.60, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.25)

2st

t(346.18) = 2.49, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.35 to 2.96)

shs_pathway

1st

t(311.00) = 1.97, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.01)

2st

t(359.65) = 2.35, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.21 to 2.34)

shs

1st

t(299.37) = 1.86, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.12 to 4.15)

2st

t(344.19) = 2.57, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.69 to 5.19)

esteem

1st

t(375.14) = -0.36, p = 0.721, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.32)

2st

t(415.78) = 0.50, p = 0.618, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.55)

mlq_search

1st

t(346.26) = 1.65, p = 0.100, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)

2st

t(395.59) = 0.03, p = 0.974, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.95)

mlq_presence

1st

t(320.76) = 0.87, p = 0.386, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.51)

2st

t(371.11) = 1.25, p = 0.214, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.84)

mlq

1st

t(324.80) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.90)

2st

t(375.50) = 0.79, p = 0.429, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.10 to 2.58)

empower

1st

t(310.01) = 0.92, p = 0.356, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.65)

2st

t(358.42) = 1.10, p = 0.273, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.86)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(358.47) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.61)

2st

t(404.96) = 1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.16)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(343.96) = -0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.68)

2st

t(393.66) = -1.26, p = 0.209, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.36 to 0.30)

sss_affective

1st

t(302.87) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)

2st

t(349.06) = -1.01, p = 0.313, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.46)

sss_behavior

1st

t(303.11) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)

2st

t(349.39) = -0.90, p = 0.367, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.43 to 0.53)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(301.76) = 0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)

2st

t(347.54) = -0.53, p = 0.598, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.72)

sss

1st

t(291.08) = 0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.15)

2st

t(331.88) = -0.82, p = 0.412, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-3.86 to 1.58)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(228.37) = 1.49, p = 0.274, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.07 to 0.48)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(213.57) = 3.29, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.34 to 1.35)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(209.11) = 4.31, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.98 to 2.62)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(214.99) = 1.88, p = 0.123, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.70)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(212.35) = 3.29, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.35 to 1.40)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(209.11) = 3.12, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.11)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(216.31) = 4.08, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.46 to 1.32)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(206.83) = -2.30, p = 0.045, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.84 to -0.22)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(210.63) = 1.71, p = 0.177, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.31)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(209.50) = 1.67, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.57)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(208.20) = 2.54, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.29 to 2.31)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(208.38) = 1.40, p = 0.323, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.15 to 0.91)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(208.63) = 2.57, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.26 to 2.01)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(207.57) = 1.85, p = 0.131, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.88)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(212.43) = 3.32, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.48 to 1.89)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(210.02) = 1.70, p = 0.182, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.78)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(209.44) = 2.77, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.13)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(207.49) = 2.24, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.06 to 0.96)

els

1st vs 2st

t(206.42) = 2.95, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.39 to 1.97)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(207.57) = -3.35, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-3.40 to -0.88)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(207.88) = 2.70, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.26 to 1.64)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(209.97) = 2.74, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.45)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(207.59) = 3.00, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.62 to 2.98)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(222.41) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.36)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(216.87) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.65 to 0.61)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(211.92) = 2.51, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.54)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(212.71) = 1.49, p = 0.277, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.98)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(209.77) = 2.75, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.27 to 1.62)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(219.21) = 2.87, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.18)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(216.43) = -3.04, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.42 to -0.30)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(208.31) = -3.92, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-1.53 to -0.51)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(208.36) = -3.15, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.37 to -0.32)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(208.08) = -3.57, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-1.48 to -0.43)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(205.85) = -4.11, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-4.09 to -1.44)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(218.67) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.29)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(208.04) = -0.75, p = 0.908, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.67 to 0.30)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(204.95) = 1.91, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.55)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(209.04) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.36)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(207.19) = 1.71, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.07 to 0.94)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(204.94) = 1.88, p = 0.123, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.80)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(209.96) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.47)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(203.38) = -1.99, p = 0.095, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-2.52 to -0.01)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(206.00) = 1.31, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.12)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(205.22) = 1.18, p = 0.476, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.30)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(204.32) = 2.40, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.21 to 2.14)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(204.45) = 1.73, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.96)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(204.62) = 1.74, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.57)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(203.89) = 2.53, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (0.26 to 2.12)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(207.25) = 2.08, p = 0.077, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.39)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(205.58) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.36)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(205.18) = 1.53, p = 0.256, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.10 to 0.80)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(203.83) = 1.55, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.09 to 0.77)

els

1st vs 2st

t(203.10) = 1.79, p = 0.150, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.44)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(203.89) = -1.29, p = 0.397, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.99 to 0.42)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(204.10) = 0.89, p = 0.745, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.96)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(205.54) = 1.96, p = 0.104, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.00 to 1.16)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(203.90) = 1.53, p = 0.256, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.00)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(214.31) = -0.93, p = 0.711, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.17)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(210.36) = 2.23, p = 0.054, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.08 to 1.29)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(206.89) = 1.87, p = 0.125, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.26)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(207.45) = 2.36, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.21 to 2.38)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(205.40) = 2.46, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.45)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(212.01) = 0.88, p = 0.760, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.66)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(210.05) = -1.53, p = 0.253, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.95 to 0.12)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(204.40) = -1.23, p = 0.438, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.18)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(204.43) = -1.85, p = 0.130, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.03)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(204.24) = -1.10, p = 0.546, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.22)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(202.70) = -1.67, p = 0.191, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.34 to 0.19)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance